Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Rework DNSServer to be more robust #5573
Rework DNSServer to be more robust #5573
Changes from all commits
9ab5ec5
96e08e1
ed919eb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like this factoring out, but my previous comment about the literal 2 in the write() below is still not addressed.
I suggest the following:
_udp.write((usigned char *)&value, sizeof(value));
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll change this. Writing 2 octets of data here is a property of the protocol, though, and not of the C++ representation that's feeding it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand, and that's why I like the factoring out into a function: it makes it clear that it's a protocol property. My comment is more for maintainability and readability. If the function ever gets copied for e.g.: 4 octets or whatever, or templated for the arg type, with sizeof() there's no need to change anything => less error-prone. And when glancing at the code, sizeof() makes what is going on evident.
It's just good habits and programming guidelines, not that there's anything with your original code.
Also, I'll be porting these changes to my async dnsserver 😆